Delhi Court September 2011 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Laxmi NaraIn Vs. Shyam Mohan Sharma
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-19-2011
1. This revision petition under Section 25 B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter „the Act) has been filed by the petitioner- tenant against the order dated 27-07-2010 passed by the Additional Rent Controller whereby his application of leave to defend the eviction petition filed against him by the respondent-landlord under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958(„the Act in short) in respect of one shop on the ground floor of property bearing no. 970, Bhojpura, Maliwara, Delhi(hereinafter „tenanted shop) has been dismissed and he has been ordered to vacate. 2. The brief facts leading the filing of this revision petition are that the respondent filed the eviction petition against the petitioner in respect of the tenanted shop on the ground of bonafide requirement. The respondent- landlord claimed in the eviction petition in para no. 18(a) as under: "That the premises are required bona fide for use as a residence by the petitioner who is the...
Ex.Gnr.Naresh Kumar Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-19-2011
1. Serving in the Indian Army is no childs play. It requires a body and mind of steel. Notwithstanding medical fitness to be a condition for securing every public employment, its importance is of greater value when employment is sought in the Indian Army and thus nobody is enrolled or commissioned in the Indian Army without being subjected to a rigorous physical fitness test as also medical fitness and only the best in body and mind are inducted in the Army. This is the preamble statement of learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner was enrolled in the Indian Army as combatant soldier and was attached to the regiment of Artillery at Bikaner on 18.3.2005 and needless to state, before his enrolment was subjected to a physical endurance test as also a medical examination which he successfully cleared i.e. he was declared physically and medically fit for being a member of an Armed Force. 3. He had hardly served for about a year and 8 months, when he was detected with abnormal b...
Kusum Lata Vs. Shyam Mohan Sharma
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-19-2011
1. This petition under Section 25-B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called „the Act) has been filed by the petitioner-tenant against the order dated 27-07-2010 passed by the Additional Rent Controller whereby her application for leave to contest the eviction petition filed by her landlord against her under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act to have the possession of the first floor of property bearing no. 970, Bhojpura, Maliwara, Delhi(hereinafter to be referred as the „tenanted premises) has been dismissed and she been ordered to vacate the tenanted premises. 2. The brief facts leading the filing of this revision petition are that the respondent-landlord filed the eviction petition against the petitioner for recovery of the tenanted premises on the ground of his bona fide requirement of the same. The respondent-landlord claimed in the eviction petition in para no. 18(a) as under:- "That the premises are required bona fide for use as a residence by the petitio...
Raj Singh Vs. Uoi and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-19-2011
1. I proceed with an apology to the reader by referring to a notification issued later in point of time and then to a notification issued prior in point of time; but the reason is that the learned counsel for the land owners had addressed arguments with respect to the notification issued later and had required price to be suitably reduced pertaining to the notification which was issued earlier in point of time. 2. Land measuring 758-01 bigha situated in the revenue estate of village Bhalswa Jahangir Puri was acquired pursuant to a notification dated 15.09.2000 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, for a public purpose, namely, „Rehabilitation of JJ Cluster. This was followed by a declaration under Section 6 of the said Act issued on 17.04.2001. After following the due process, the Land Acquisition Collector announced his award bearing No.6/2002-03 dated 20.04.2002, whereby he assessed the fair market value of the acquired land at `2,87,916.66 per bigha, which i...
The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India and anr. Vs. the Direc ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-19-2011
The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India and Mr. Amarjit Chopra, President and Member of the Central Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (hereinafter referred to as the petitioners) have filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 19th May, 2009 passed by the Director General of Income-Tax (Exemptions), New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) dismissing/rejecting the institutes application under Section 10(23C)(iv) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Act, for short) for the assessment year 2009-10 onwards. The petitioners have prayed that the respondent should be directed to recognize and grant approval to the petitioner institute under the aforesaid Section for the assessment years 2006-07, 2007- 08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 and onwards. 2. On 7th May, 2008, the petitioner institute had filed an application in form No. 56 for grant of exemption under Section 10(23C)(iv) of the Act for ...
Management of M/S Pacco Industrial Corporation Vs. Govt. of Nct of Del ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-19-2011
1. The Petitioner management has filed this writ petition challenging an Award dated 1st August 2002 passed by the Labour Court in ID No. 530 of 1997. In the Award, the Labour Court held that the management had illegally terminated the services of Respondent No. 2 workman and directed his reinstatement with back wages. 2. While directing notice to issue in the writ petition on 15th October 2003, this Court had declined to stay the reinstatement of the workman but had stayed the impugned Award in so far as it granted back wages to the workman. 3. Respondent No. 2 workman joined the Petitioner on 1st August 1989. According to the Petitioner, the workman failed to report for duty from 10th November 1995 to 25th October 1996. It is further stated that on 26th October 1996, the workman came to the establishment and informed the security officer that he could not attend his duties owing to a lung disease. On that date, the management asked the workman to report for duty along with his fitnes...
Lt. Col S.D. Surie Vs. Paramount Enterprises and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-19-2011
1. The present Appeal assails the order dated 8th September, 2009 passed by the learned Single Judge. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge disposed of an interim application captioned as I.A. No.3697/2009 in CS (OS) 788/1993. 2. This interim application was filed by the Defendants No.1 to 8/Respondents herein (hereafter referred to as Defendants 1 to 8) under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 for the purpose of recalling the order dated 8th April, 2008 passed by this Court. 3. Brief facts leading upto the filing of the present Appeal are as follows:- (a) The Appellant filed a Suit for Declaration claiming that the alienation and sale certificate of property No.6, Amrita Shergil Marg, New Delhi (suit property), as void, illegal and ineffective qua 1/3rd share of the Appellant as the same does not belong to the Respondents. (b) The Appellant claims the suit property to be built by his father and subsequently rented out to one Sh. B.M. Patel. (c) The Appell...
Union of India Vs. M/S. K.K. Gupta Const. Engineers (Jv)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-19-2011
1. A tender was floated for award of the work of construction of bridge No.81 over all spans over river UJH to the appellant vide contract dated 10.6.2005. The contract had to be completed within a period of 24 months and it is stated that two extensions were granted. It is during the course of the work itself that disputes arose between the parties and the respondent invoked arbitration clause No.64. The designated authority, being the General Manager, Northern Railway, vide letter dated 3.9.2007 appointed a panel of three arbitrators who entered upon reference on 10.9.2007 and made & published the award on 28.5.2008. The petitioner aggrieved by the award filed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 objecting to the award albeit there being some delay in refiling which was condoned. The objections have been decided vide impugned order dated 6.7.2011 in OMP No.582/2008. It is this order which is now sought to be assailed in the present appea...
Radico Khaitan Limited Vs. Carlsberg India Private Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-16-2011
1. By this order I shall dispose of the plaintiff's interim application being I.A. No. 8122/2011 under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for permanent injunction to restrain infringement, passing off, dilution and damages under Sections 29, 56 and 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. 2. CASE OF THE PLAINTIFF (a) The plaint states that the plaintiff has been continuously and extensively carrying on an established and reputed business in respect of manufacture and sale of alcoholic beverages in India, as well as numerous countries across the world directly by itself and through its affiliates, subsidiaries, licensees, etc. The plaintiff manufactures a host of products including juices of various kinds, drinking water, liquor, such as, Extra Neutral Alcohol (ENA), Industrial Alcohol (Rectified Spirit), Indian made Foreign Liquor (IMFL), Country Liquor and Cane Juice Spirit. Besides, the plaintiff has a tie-up with 22 bottling uni...
Urmil Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-16-2011
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the tribunal has erred in dismissing the O.A.No.1999/2010 filed by the petitioner herein by their order dated 9th August, 2011, on the ground of delay and laches. He submits that the petitioner had applied for information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 vide application dated 27th March, 2009 and after the information was made available on 15th June, 2010, she had filed the original application before the tribunal on 21 st June, 2010. It is further submitted that the tribunal had decided the question what is meant by the term 'elective subject' vide their decision dated 15th September, 2008 in O.A.No.1054/2008 and, therefore, there was no delay and the petitioner had approached the tribunal within a reasonable period. 2. The petitioner had appeared for selection as a Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) in Hindi as an OBC candidate. She qualified in the Part-I examination and appeared in the Part-II examination on 2nd September, 200...
- ‹ Prev
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- Next ›
- Last »